DLDT: NHL Draft Lottery Edition

[WildCard]

Hahaha yeah we're all pumped for him. He's the second oldest of four (27 y/o) and the first to have a kid. It's just not as important as the draft :P

Ahh gotcha. I thought you were so mad about the #2 pick that your 16 y/o brother knocking up his prom date didn't even phase you

 

[qwksndmonster]

Ahh gotcha. I thought you were so mad about the #2 pick that your 16 y/o brother knocking up his prom date didn't even phase you

:lol: :lol:

[IKnowPhysics]

Yes please

 

Plus, you already know the names of the only two Sabres as high or higher than 2nd in a (non-supplemental) draft. Whomever we pick will be a household name in WNY and, with any success, league-wide.

 

(although WTF Kari Lehtonen doing on this list!)

 

Atlanta. That is all.

 

He had a lot of draft hype, but ended up on a ###### team and never mastered the level of conditioning necessary to operate as a big-guy goalie, hence the groin issues.

[bunomatic]

Well I got home from hockey and heard that 1) the Panthers won the lottery and 2) my brother's gonna be a dad.

 

SO PUMPED ABOUT PICK #2 WOOOOO :w00t:

 

Uncle qwksndmonster has a nice ring to it

[qwksndmonster]

Uncle qwksndmonster has a nice ring to it

I liked it better when you used to call me daddy :(

[bunomatic]

I liked it better when you used to call me daddy :(

 

:blink:

[wjag]

Buffalo already has more picks than it needs. We need elite talent. Buffalo has the 10 players it needs to fill the depth chart, or at least will after the next two drafts, but it doesn't have a single player that fills a true top six. So no. Hopefully he doesn't swap out for more picks...

Sabres don't need lots of prospects, they need high end prospects. Trading a near sure thing for potentially getting some 2nd and 3rd liners would set the franchise back another year.

 

My guess is they could swap a place or two and then still get their guy, if he is not Reinhart.

 

More picks means more ability to package deals for the players you want.

[dudacek]

Seriously, if you have Draisaitl, Ekblad and the Sams rating virtually even, you'd be foolish not to see what the Oilers would offer you to switch, especially if if you are having the same conversation with the Flames and leveraging them against other.

 

Now if you have a guy head and shoulders above the rest, then, yes, you sit tight and take him.

 

Another thing we shouldn't be discounting is that if we get the Islanders pick, we have more than enough ammunition to move up with either Edmonton or Calgary and claim two of the big four.

 

God bless you Garth Snow.

Edited April 16, 2014 by dudacek

[Andrew Amerk]

Reinhart.

 

That is all.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Andrew Amerk

[IKnowPhysics]

Yeah, the conversation isn't about dropping out of the top five (top three even) into a tank-screwing mid-draft position, it's about maximizing assets. If you can drop a spot or two, get the guy you want, and get a free pick that nets a JT Compher-like player, or potentially more/other assets, it's worth consideration.

Edited April 16, 2014 by IKnowPhysics

[Hoss]

Reinart.

 

That is all.

 

Well that and an h.

 

 

 

If you have even the slightest SLIGHTEST separation, then you take the guy you want.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Tankalicious

[qwksndmonster]

My guess is they could swap a place or two and then still get their guy, if he is not Reinhart.

 

More picks means more ability to package deals for the players you want.

Oh, in that case, sure. I don't think Tim's guy is going to be there at 4 or 5, though.

[PromoTheRobot]

I hope today is a reminder that tanking for a player is stupid. Yes, not a huge deal we get #2 this year. But if this were 2015 and we put up with two seasons like the one we just had and we didn't get the top pick I'd want to vomit. We'll probably have the Isles 2015 pick anyway and I'll bet they will stink next year too, so we'll have a shot at next years lottery without having to tank..

[TrueBlueGED]

I hope today is a reminder that tanking for a player is stupid. Yes, not a huge deal we get #2 this year. But if this were 2015 and we put up with two seasons like the one we just had and we didn't get the top pick I'd want to vomit. We'll probably have the Isles 2015 pick anyway and I'll bet they will stink next year too, so we'll have a shot at next years lottery without having to tank..

 

1) If we get Jack Eichel I'll do cartwheels around the neighborhood.

 

2) It doesn't matter what we do, we're a lottery team next year.

[IKnowPhysics]

If we tank next year, we'll have a 25% chance of winning the lottery.

 

But in that case, the chance of us not winning the lottery 2013, 2014, and 2015 would have only been 54.2%. So if you don't know how stats work, you can fool yourself into believing that we almost have a 45.8% chance if we tank next year.

Edited April 16, 2014 by IKnowPhysics

[qwksndmonster]

Brink of ignorance math? I like it.

[WildCard]

1) If we get Jack Eichel I'll do cartwheels around the neighborhood.

 

2) It doesn't matter what we do, we're a lottery team next year.

I think this is being overlooked. Intentional or not, we will not be good by any standards next year. Better? Of course, we can't be any worse. But by GMTM's interview, if we're looking at being out of the playoff picture by January, you'll see a hardcore tank mode in a perhaps intentional manner.

[TrueBlueGED]

If we tank next year, we'll have a 25% chance of winning the lottery.

 

But in that case, the chance of us not winning the lottery 2013, 2014, and 2015 would have only been 54.2%. So if you don't know how stats work, you can fool yourself into believing that we almost have a 45.8% chance if we tank next year.

 

I like where you're going with this. I'm in!

[qwksndmonster]

I think this is being overlooked. Intentional or not, we will not be good by any standards next year. Better? Of course, we can't be any worse. But by GMTM's interview, if we're looking at being out of the playoff picture by January, you'll see a hardcore tank mode in a perhaps intentional manner.

Put a "meh" team out on the ice and then abandon ship at the deadline and tailspin? I can see next season playing out like that.

[wjag]

I'm pretty certain that Murray went out of his way to say we are tanking, just not the obvious way.

[carpandean]

If we tank next year, we'll have a 25% chance of winning the lottery.

 

But in that case, the chance of us not winning the lottery 2013, 2014, and 2015 would have only been 54.2%. So if you don't know how stats work, you can fool yourself into believing that we almost have a 45.8% chance if we tank next year.

 

Don't forget that we've lost three straight lotteries (2012, 2013, 2014), so the "we're due" factor bumps that up to like 60%. ;)

Edited April 16, 2014 by carpandean

[Marvelo]

Anyone know if Buttman has the comissioner's job for life?

[deluca67]

I hope today is a reminder that tanking for a player is stupid. Yes, not a huge deal we get #2 this year. But if this were 2015 and we put up with two seasons like the one we just had and we didn't get the top pick I'd want to vomit. We'll probably have the Isles 2015 pick anyway and I'll bet they will stink next year too, so we'll have a shot at next years lottery without having to tank..

It's still nowhere near as bad as the era of irrelevance this franchise has been in. At least a top pick offers hope, more than continually missing the playoffs and finishing just high enough to miss out on the top tier talent.

[ALF]

Have to agree with Murray and expect picking 2nd even if last. Do not plan on getting Mc David next year even if we finish 30 or 29. If we won the lottery great put can't bet on that happening.

[Jsixspd]

How was this a curse?

 

Not winning, when we had the best chance of winning. Even an epic bad season couldn't get the team get the #1 pick. Buffalo = cursed.

 

Tim Murray said in his press conference regarding the lottery that he wanted "to win something!" Sorry, Tim....this is just not the town to do that in.